Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (LISTS OF DOCTORS)

Mr. Bossom: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether, as the National Health Service comes into being on 5th July, he will state when the list of doctors in the Health Service, promised for 21st June or soon after, will be available in post offices and libraries, so that the public may choose their doctors before that date.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I asked Executive Councils to get these lists into the post offices on or as soon as possible after the 21st June. Some of them have already done so, others, including London, have not yet succeeded, but will do so as soon as possible. Any member of the public in an area where the lists have not yet appeared can apply to the Executive Council for the names of doctors on the lists in his neighbourhood.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that, in an endeavour to find out doctors on the lists, I first went to a post office, where I was told to telephone to the Ministry, which I did, and I received the answer which the Minister has just given? I then went to another post office, and there I was told to go to a library and look up the Medical Register. I found the first three names on the list, and went to those addresses. The first one was a bombed site, and the other two men had gone away. This is a serious situation. Cannot the Minister give the country any information as to when the public are to get these names?

Mr. Bevan: Of course, I always expected that, as a consequence of the tardiness of many of the doctors to sign up on these lists, there would be inconvenience after 5th July. The House will recollect that the official propaganda of the profession itself told the doctors that there was no hurry to sign up, and the result is that we have had a large rush of doctors

in the last few days, making it quite impassible for Executive Councils to put up complete lists in time.
Furthermore, many of the local medical committees of the profession have asked the Executive Councils not to put up incomplete lists, because they said it would be unfair to those doctors who had not yet signed up, so that, in some instances, in fact, in many cases, it is entirely in consequence of the conduct of the official propaganda by the medical profession, for which I refuse to accept the slightest responsibility. The House will recollect that I myself issued leaflets urging the profession and the public to sign up.
May I say this in conclusion? The hon. Member has had some difficulty, but about 7,500,000 had already entered up on the doctors' lists up to 26th June, and, as the House knows, 20 million on the panels are automatically transferred. That means that, up to 26th June, 27,500,000 people were already on the panels.

Mr. Assheton: I am sorry that the Minister has seen fit to put the blame entirely on the doctors, which we, on this side of the House, certainly cannot accept. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can indicate to the House, so that the public may know, where communications may be addressed to these Executive Councils about which he spoke?

Mr. Bevan: The names and addresses of the Executive Councils are put up in the post offices and in some cases in the public libraries. Part of the difficulty in London is that some 1,500 general practitioners have to be classified for their particular areas. Obviously, putting up 1,500 names in one list is of no use to anybody at all.

Major Tufton Beamish: Is it not absolutely unfair to put the whole blame for the delay on the doctors, than whom there is no more public-spirited body in the whole country? [Interruption.] Certainly. Is not the whole cause the Minister's own intense obstinacy in conducting the negotiations?

Mr. Bevan: I put no blame on individual doctors. I do, however, say that this situation could be expected when the profession's own propaganda completely clashed with the instructions given by the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: As there is a good deal of confusion in the minds of the public, will my right hon. Friend consider making some short, clear statement on the wireless to guide people?

Mr. Bevan: The position is already perfectly clear, and the public understands it very well. In the course of the next week, the lists will appear in the post offices, and in some libraries, and the public will be able to enter their names on the lists. I would like to make it quite clear here that it is absolutely essential for the doctor himself to be in the list before 5th July, but the public can join at any time afterwards.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that on 25th March I indicated in a written Question to him that this situation would arise, and the answer he gave me was:
I cannot accept the assumption underlying the Question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1948: Vol. 448, c. 347.]

The situation which I then anticipated has arisen, and the Minister has done nothing about it.

Mr. Bevan: I cannot recollect what the hon. Gentleman assumed at that time. All I know is that I was perfectly well aware, and the House was perfectly well aware, that if the doctors did delay in entering their names on the list the public would be inconvenienced.

Mr. Gallacher: I think the general opinion of most people is that the Minister has been, if anything, over-generous and considerate to the doctors. I would only ask him, while I do not want to digress, that he might show the same consideration to the Scottish chemists from whom I have received about a thousand telegrams.

Mr. Speaker: We are getting pretty wide now. We had better get on with Business.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1946–47

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

" Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1947, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £34,382,750 16s. 3d. namely:—



£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
42,865,286
15
0


Total Deficits
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
8,482,535
18
9


Net Surplus
…
…
…
…
£34,382,750
16
3

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.


SCHEDULE


No. of Vote
Army Services, 1946–47 Votes
Deficits
Surpluses


Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure
Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts
Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure
Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, &amp;c., o. the Army
…
—
—
14,086,858
3
4
1,477,984
1
6


2
Reserve Forces, Territorial Army, Cadet Forces, &amp;c.
—
—
779,614
13
1
33,183
17
10


3
Medical Services
…
…
—
—
90,483
16
0
38,764
9
10


4
Educational Establishments
—
36,167
12
5
163,175
17
5
—


5
Quartering and Movements
5,761,678
16
11
497,152
15
0
—
—


6
Supplies
…
…
…
—
55,780
5
3
18,172,668
1
4
—


7
Clothing
…
…
…
—
—
321,963
13
10
76,192
15
10


8
General Stores
…
…
1,298,011
11
1
—
—
16,860
14
9


9
Warlike Stores
…
…
—
—
2,478,021
14
5
173,935
0
1


10
Works, Buildings and Lands
—
—
1,590,440
3
9
1,104,251
4
11


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services
—
275,006
16
9
572,594
2
9
—


12
War Office
…
…
…
21,934
1
0
—
—
6,352
3
7


13
Half-Pay, Retired Pay and other Non - effective Charges for Officers
—
—
253,372
12
2
14,912
9
2


14
Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, men and others
—
1,538
6
11
591,823
6
3
—


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Gratuities
535,265
13
5
—
—
1,296
12
8



Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned
—
—
820,537
0
6
—




7,616,890
2
5
865,645
16
4
39,921,553
4
10
2,943,733
10
2




Total Deficits:
Total Surpluses:




£8,48,482,535 18s. 9d.
£42,865,286 15s.




Net Surplus £34,382,750 16s. 3d."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

Mr. Assheton: Perhaps the Financial Secretary would be good enough to give the Committee some information on this matter. I am not sure that everyone here understands the exact nature of this Motion, although scale of us who have been at the Treasury have a little knowledge of these matters.

11.15 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I should perhaps explain that this is an annual Resolution, and I believe, if I may say so, that it is about once in a decade that any comments are made when it is introduced. The Committee will realise that statutory authority is given in the Appropriation Acts for the process known as virement—the transfer of a surplus from one Army Vote to meet the deficit on another. The authority is given partly by the Appropriation Acts and partly by a Treasury Minute which was laid before Parliament on 5th February this year. In accordance with that authority, there was a transfer of money—an application of surpluses on some Votes to meet deficits on others—and further, in accordance with the Resolution which was passed in this House in 1879, colloquially known as the Monk Resolution, the extent to which this process of transferring surpluses on one Vote to meet deficits on another has been carried out is laid before Parliament, and hon. Members will see it in the Schedule on the Order Paper.
Hon. Members will notice that the sums involved are not large. The explanations have already been laid before Parliament in the Army Appropriation Accounts. In the main, the use of this process of virement arose in some cases because of quite minor miscalculations, in one case of the order of one per cent., and in another case 0.07 per cent., of the amount of money that would be required. In other cases certain bills which we had not anticipated we should have to meet this year were, in fact, presented and had to be met. I think, therefore, the Committee will agree that there is nothing of very great substance here, and we are asking the Committee to carry through a normal constitutional procedure.

11.18 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not agree that this is a minor matter. According to this Schedule, there is a net surplus of £34,382,750, and there is no very clear explanation of how far this net surplus is to be expended. This is only an indication of the huge sum that is being spent this year for military purposes. Actually, so far as the nation is concerned, there is not a net surplus but a deficit of about £300 million as a result of this year's swollen Army Estimates. There are various items on which I would like a reply from the Under-Secretary of State. There is a question of the disposal of surplus stores—

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss the eventual disposal of the surplus. That question may only be discussed on the Estimates in which that item appears. The only question here is why there is a surplus. Questions on general policy are not permissible.

Mr. Hughes: These figures are entirely illusory; in fact, there is no surplus On analysing this Schedule it will be seen that there is no surplus. The whole thing means that we are spending £300 million a year on the Army in peace time, and I wish to make an emphatic protest.

11.19 a.m.

Major Haughton: May I seek your guidance, Major Milner? I am a raw recruit in these matters, and I am among those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) as not being familiar with this procedure. I wish to ask you whether or not any comment may be made on any of the items in this Schedule, some of which result from failure to spend money and some from an excess of expenditure. May I comment on any of them?

The Chairman: I think that the appropriate place would be on the Estimates in which any of these items appear.

Mr. Assheton: I am much obliged to the Under-Secretary of State for his explanation. Although this is a matter which occurs only about once in 10 years or so, it is as well to understand what happens, and in that connection I think it was useful of him to say what he did.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — FACTORIES BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [11th June], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

11.21 a.m.

Mr. Piratin: I began this speech three weeks ago and I do not want to repeat anything I said then, except, with your permission, Sir, to recapitulate some points so that there may be continuity in my speech today.
I said, that I, as well as other hon. Members who had spoken, welcomed the Bill, and while acknowledging the value of the Amendments to the Factories Act, 1937, felt that they could go wider than was suggested in the Bill itself. I took three points relating to Clauses 2, 3 and 6 of the Bill. In connection with Clause 2, dealing with the extension of certain health supervision, I asked whether perhaps it could be extended to railways, and I will deal with that point subsequently. In relation to Clause 3, I asked what steps are being taken to ensure the close association of the Ministry with the problems of disease arising from new industrial processes. In connection with Clause 6, which we all welcome, providing new seating facilities in factories, I asked what steps the Minister would take to make sure that when this Clause came into operation in October, 1950, there would be sufficient seating accommodation available to implement the provisions.
I want to go on from the point where I left off three weeks ago. I want to deal with three features of the general question of employment and labour. Turning to canteen and eating facilities, in the 1937 Act there is no mention of this whatsoever. During the war, a number of regulations were introduced which undoubtedly provided facilities never provided before and which have set the pace for the post-war period. I would like the Minister to see whether it is possible to make an obligation on all factory owners or employers—that is, in factories over a certain size—to provide meals which are wholesome, cheap and in decent surroundings. It is vital that the inspectors should pay attention to the supervision of the kitchens, crockery and utensils. I know that in this connection local sanitary inspectors have some responsibility, and I

ask the Minister whether he could say a word on the way in which the two sets of inspectors will work together, because I have reason to believe that there is a certain amount of overlapping—and we all know what happens when there is overlapping.
Similarly, there should be supervision of the places where the meals are eaten. I have been into a number of factories of a good size and I have seen some very good canteens where special eating facilities are provided. In factories with a strength of about 10,000, one would expect accommodation of this kind, especially in the modern factories in London which I have in mind. I have seen smaller factories where the work has been cleared from the benches at which the men work and the meal placed there and eaten there. I have seen that, and participated in it myself. It seems to me that in this connection a small Amendment to Section 1 of the main Act might help the whole situation by arranging for daily rather than weekly cleaning.
The second point of a general character which I wish to make is one which was made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) when he spoke three weeks ago, and it is with regard to the participation of the workers themselves in implementing the Act. It is true that on the joint production committees there is a possibility for the workers' side to make recommendations which may or may not be taken up. But in the amending Bill we have the possibility of introducing an Amendment to give workers' representatives a right to be consulted on these matters of welfare. At the moment, the factory inspector has certain powers under Section 123 of the main Act to examine a person in order to obtain information. Obviously one assumes that such examination is called for only when there may be some resistance on the part of the person to provide the information to which the inspector is entitled. The provision which the hon. Member for Wigan was suggesting is something much wider and much more important than that. I would like to see it made an obligation on the factory inspectors to consult shop stewards or other representatives of the workers in factories, both inside and outside the factories, if required, in order to determine the suitability of the factory premises.
The third general point with which I would like to deal is the inadequate number of inspectors, because this relates in a large measure to the possibility of implementing both the existing Act and this Bill which we are now discussing. The last Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1946 mentioned that there were 354 inspectors and advisers, of whom 112 were temporary staff. This figure of 354 was actually a decrease of 31 by comparison with 1945. We would all have expected in 1946, that being the first full year after the war, that there would have been an increase; on the contrary, there was, unfortunately, a decrease.
In another part of his Report he mentions that in 1946 there were 189,913 factories with mechanical output, and that was an increase of 9,000 over 1945. Therefore, I feel we cannot afford to view this matter except with serious concern. I was told last week by a man who works in one of the biggest factories in Greater London—for 15 years he has been an engineer and for 10 years a shop steward—that he has never yet met a factory inspector in all the 15 years he has been in the engineering industry. I believe this is a matter which calls for the attention of the Minister and which should be given proper consideration.
I want to deal with a couple of things in the Act itself which I think call for further amendment. One deals with Section 42, which relates to washing facilities. Perhaps I may quote a paragraph from Section 42 (1). I am sure the workers will be interested to know of its existence. Although the Minister can answer that they can read this on the sheets which are up in the factories, we all know that they do not read the sheets which so often are, unfortunately, placed in a position where it is difficult to read the very small print on them. The Act says:
There shall be provided and maintained for the use of employed persons adequate and suitable facilities for washing which shall include soap and clean towels or other suitable means of cleaning or drying, and the facilities shall be conveniently accessible and shall be kept in a clean and orderly condition.
I am certain that most workers in most factories will be amazed to know that they are entitled to those conditions. The Minister may claim that they can find out for themselves from their trade union, or from the Act, or by reading the notices

on the boards in the factories, but we have to look at the situation as we know it to exist. Therefore, I would like the Minister to take a hand in this matter and to see whether it is possible to make some amendment in the implementation of this Section of the existing Act. As we know only too well, this is one of the most abused Sections of the whole Act. In most places there are no decent, washing facilities. The provision made here is for clean towels and soap. Hon. Members know that if they go to our dining room a quarter of an hour after a meal has begun to be served, they find that the best dishes have gone. When a factory worker goes to the factory washing place, he always finds that other workers have already been there and the towels are no longer clean.
In Section 151 there is a definition of "factory," and there is a certain amount of detail there. However, the definition does not include railways. I should like it to include railways. I spoke of this three weeks ago. I know that to include railways may open up a big question, but I think the Minister should give this matter his attention, in consultation with the Minister of Transport, because the position of the railways is probably the worst of all amongst the industries of the country. We know the very difficult circumstances in which the locomotive men work up and down the line. Precisely because their work is done in more difficult conditions, those conditions ought to be made better, even if it costs money. The conditions are bad because of the absence of such regulations as are provided for in the Act to regulate conditions in factories and workshops. The 1937 Act deliberately omitted railways. It may be that that was because of the influence of the railway companies. I do not know. The Minister may know the answer. Today the position is very different. There are no longer railway companies: we have British Railways instead; and I submit that the railways, instead of being the worst of all places at which to work, from the point of view of welfare and health conditions, ought to be an example to the whole of the country.
There are several particulars in which the Bill should be amended, and during the Committee stage hon. Members may wish to move some Amendments. It is not only a matter of introducing new and


improving Clauses. It is primarily a matter of implementing them, and I hope that the Minister will give that matter his immediate attention.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. Assheton: I should not like the Bill to pass its Second Reading without something being said from this side of the House to complete the support given the Bill in another place and in this Chamber on the last occasion. When I was at the Ministry of Labour, the duties of the factory inspectorate were taken from the Home Office and given to the Ministry of Labour. At that time it was an experiment, and there were some who doubted whether that experiment would prove to be successful. I think it is pretty clear now that the decision arrived at is the right one. The Minister of Labour is probably in the best position of all to manage the factory inspectorate, and we on this side of the House certainly do not dissent from that arrangement.
This is the first Measure concerning factories that the Minister of Labour has introduced. In previous years and on previous occasions, I suppose, such Bills have been introduced by the Home Secretary. I had some experience of factory inspection when I was at the Ministry, and I always thought that that department was an extraordinarily fine one, and that the men in it were men who thoroughly understood their work, and carried out their duties to the satisfaction of both sides of industry. So far as the Bill is concerned, I believe it is agreed to by the representatives of the employers' and the workers' organisations, at any rate, in general; and though there may be some details which we may wish to comment upon when we reach the Committee stage, as far as the general purpose of the Bill is concerned, we on this side of the House give it our wholehearted support.

11.35 a.m.

Dr. Morgan: I am very sorry to have to express deep concern about this Bill. I want to say quite frankly at the outset that there are certain Clauses of the Bill concerning which I personally, with my experience of industrial diseases and industrial medicine, and factory inspection in general, beg to differ from the Government; and if there is a Division, I shall have to abstain on conscientious grounds. This is really a

retrograde step. The Government have brought in a National Health Service Act. The complement to that would have been the introduction of an industrial medical services Measure, for which there is a great deal of desire on the part of the organised workers in the country, organised through their trade unions and through the Trades Union Congress. Speaking as one with knowledge of the trade union movement, and having been closely associated with it for the last 16 years, at any rate, in a professional capacity, I know of no particular trade union, however desirous of factory reform, that likes or approves of this Measure.
The point which riles them most, and about which there is considerable disapproval, not only among the trade unions, but among the individual workers of the country, is Clause 7, and particularly Subsection (2) of that Clause. It concerns the examining surgeons whose duties are defined in the main Act of 1937. There is now to be a change of name. Not only that, but a doctor selected by employers, individually or in combination, or the industrial medical officer appointed by the employer in a particular factory, will now have the option of being appointed as a factory doctor to fulfil all the duties, formerly imposed upon the examining surgeon. He has to do all the primary examinations, the recruitment examinations; and there are certain forms of certificate by which he is able to delay proceedings. He has thus the right to decide whether or not a recruit for work in a particular industry is or is not fit for work. In fact, he takes on practically all the duties imposed on the examining surgeon. This Bill enables that doctor appointed by the employer without any reference whatever to the worker in the factory or to the trade union concerned, to have the decision not only as to the diagnosis in an individual case, but as to the fitness of the recruit for work.
The trade unions have always held that they were loath to except a general physical standard of health for industry, because industries differ so much that, while a man may be fit for work in one industry, he may not be fit for work in another; and so they have been most careful to see that there is provision made only for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of those not passed as fit by the


examining surgeon for particular work or any work. They have held that there should be no general standard of health set up, however desirable it may be from the point of view of the general community.
The examining surgeon is supposed to be an impartial person appointed by the appropriate Government Department. He should be impartial, giving a judicial opinion, not on one side or the other. For example, as I act for the trade unions, my certificate as to whether a man was fit for work or not would not be accepted. But now, under this Bill, the employer's doctor will have the right to do all the work previously performed by the examining surgeon. I think I am right in saying—the Minister will correct me if I am not—that representations have been formally made to him, not only in writing but by deputations, by the Trades Union Congress, with its unchallengeable record of representation of the workers, to do all he can, particularly on this point, to prevent this from happening.
In this Bill the facility for the employer's doctor to be made an examining surgeon is taken as the general rule. I suggest to the Minister that in Committee, or elsewhere—I do not suppose I shall be a Member of the Standing Committee—he should make this provision particular instead of general, and take authority to say that the company's doctor should not usually be appointed to this post; he, as Minister, or his Department, acting on the advice of his inspectors and medical officers, should have the right in particular cases to make this appointment, if it is necessary. If he made the reverse condition, rather than leaving it general that would be some consolation at least, in a Bill which is greatly disliked, and looked on with objection and abhorrence by the workers in general.
We want increased production in this country, and from the psychological point of view we want the workers to feel no frustration. Sometimes the ordinary person in industry forgets the cumulative effect of a whole series of frustrations of the workers, who feel that at every, point they are met with injustice. Time and time again the medical aspect comes in, yet there is no general industrial

medical service; there are too few medical factory inspectors; indeed, there are too few inspectors at all. One has only to consider the number of factories in this country and compare it with the number of inspectors, medical and lay, to realise that. I happen to know from my past association with the Minister that he is as keen on this as anybody else; but, of course, he has to do the job at any particular moment with the tools he has at hand, and I do not blame the Minister in any way.
But we really must seriously consider this aspect, when permission is given to the employer's doctors to do this job. Suppose, for example, the employer's doctor came to the opinion that a man was suffering from dermatitis, but that it was not due to the man's work, when it was known that in the factory there was definite exposure to certain chemical substances which in many cases—not all, because some skins are different; some skins are resistant and some are not—would cause dermatitis, or that people working there would run the hazard of getting dermatitis. That man would be excluded from his job, because there is no facility provided for the necessary cleansing, which would cost the employer 2d. a person for the care of their hands.
The decision on recruitment to a factory by the industrial medical officer to the firm—now to be appointed and called a factory doctor—will be decisive. There should be a right of appeal against the decision of the employer's doctor on recruitment into industry. It is well known that in many firms there are certain risks to health, and general hazards, and some industries are prepared to go to any lengths to eliminate them. In some cases, where there is the risk of dermatitis, there are inspections and skin tests, and everything is done to find out whether a man may or may not be infected. The point is that this is a general examination on recruitment into industry, and the employer's doctor has the decisive voice whether a person should or should not go into a particular industry.
This is a retrograde Bill. This is not the way in which the Government should handle an industrial medical service. Only the large factories have industrial medical officers under the regulations made by the former Minister of Health. What about the small factories, in which there


may be as many hazards as in a large factory? There is no industrial medical officer there; no scheme there for the consolidation or welding together of the smaller factories with risks, and the appointment of medical officers. Impartial medical officers should be appointed to deal with this question. I have been doing this work now for years, and I feel very strongly about it. While I do not want to over-stress my point of view, which some hon. Members may think I am emphasising unduly, I see the result on the workers suffering from these diseases; I know the risks of exposure to various diseases such as tuberculosis in foundries, and dust infection. These I presume come under the old scheme for silicosis and the other industrial diseases schemes, which will still go on.
The medical profession is very keen indeed that the information given by a patient or examinee to a doctor should be strictly confidential. Now, records have to be kept by the examining surgeon, by law; he has to make a yearly report to the Minister's Department, by law, and on those reports collectively statistics are issued in the annual report from the Department. But when the employer's doctor, who is to be made the factory doctor, is to conduct these examinations, who will guarantee confidential relationship between the potential recruit to industry and an impartial doctor? Who will guarantee that the records of the doctor will be kept secret? And kept where? At the factory presumably; not at an independent doctor's surgery. Presumably they will be kept by the industrial medical officer somewhere in the factory. Who will guarantee that confidential information, perhaps not of an industrial disease but of a social or hereditary disease, will not be divulged to the employer or to one of his high officials? In spite of these dangers, the medical profession, which is so keen about this in connection with the National Health Service, has not yet raised one word of objection to the risk of this confidential information being passed on if this Clause remains in the Bill.
On the ground that this Bill does not deal with what we really have in mind—that is, an industrial medical service involving both large and small factories—on the ground that it is a bad step to have a close association between the employer in a workshop with particular health

risks and the industrial medical officer, I personally disagree with the Bill. I do so from my experience of industrial medicine, from my knowledge of the industrial workers of the country, and from the knowledge which has reached me since the Bill was introduced, because there is a great deal of feeling and concern about this question. Because of all those objections, I must ask the Minister to look again at the whole of this Bill, and especially at the Clauses which allow the industrial medical officer for the employer to act in this way.
As the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) pointed out, even now certain workshops are excluded from the main Factories Act. This Bill should be taken back to the Department, and the Minister should consider whether he cannot produce a really impartial industrial medical service. If there are objectors who say that his Department should not run it, or that trade unions should not have too great a voice in it, why not put it in the hands of an industrial medical service board, with impartial members, and with, if you like a judge as chairman? It would deal with matters of this kind in a strictly impartial way, like the Assistance Board. Let us have something which will deal with these questions in the way I have indicated and which will not invite charges of bureaucratic interference or trade union infiltration. The problem can be handled in that way. If it is, I feel sure that the trade unions of the country will do their very best to see whether they can come to agreement on the matter.
One more word. If the Bill is passed it will probably put back the clock of the industrial medical service. There is a great deal of feeling of frustration among the workers in regard to the Bill. They feel keenly that the Bill will affect their lives and their health. The Bill deals not only with industrial disease and industrial medicine and the general health of the workers, but also with accidents. Sometimes a worker suffers an accident. He is supposed in law to report that accident to his employer, but the worker may be unconscious for days, or sometimes for a fortnight, as a result of the accident. It is true that if he is in a trade union—some workers foolishly are not—the trade union comes in and fulfils that legal part of the proceedings on his behalf.
Because of these objections which I have raised and more especially because of what I think is always missed, the psychological effect upon the worker, and the cumulative effect of all these restrictions upon his work and his production, I ask the Minister, either in Committee or in another place, to reconsider the Bill and to see whether something can be done to bring in a new Bill or to improve the present one. If the Minister can do nothing else, he can insist that permission must be given in particular cases to the employer's doctor to act for the employer as against the man. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am going on too long. I am one of those who retain great caution about the officers of this Department. I am not for a moment complaining of bad work or of their overwork, but I know my profession and especially do I know the medical bureaucracy. I know the tendency of doctors in Government Departments to act quickly and decisively, but sometimes they are quite wrong. Sometimes their suggestion of impartiality is not quite correct.
The Minister knows of a case of a very senior member in his own Department who stayed on and boasted of his impartiality. He was on a committee for the scheduling of diseases. When the moment came for him to retire on pension from his office, he had a fortnight's holiday. He found himself, at the end of that holiday, consultant and medical adviser to the biggest chemical combine in Great Britain. Workers came to me and asked me: "Are you not the adviser to the T.U.C.? Are you going to allow a man whose impartiality could not be challenged before, the moment he retires to become consulting adviser to the biggest chemical combine in this country?". I replied that the man had a perfect right in his retirement to do what he liked. The workers did not doubt his impartiality when he was in office, but having regard to his position now, they are getting great qualms of conscience whether such things should be done.
The Minister also knows of a certain district in which the medical officer did not discover certain things which were of vital importance to his own industry, of which he had had experience. Why was that? Simply because that officer had so many factories in his district that he could

not possibly cover them within a year or two, even if he visited them only once in six months or once a year. This is really my final word. I thank the House for the opportunity of being able to say something in opposition to the Bill. I plead with the Minister, on behalf not of the well and fit workers of the country, but on behalf of those who are suffering, or diseased, in consequence of bad conditions of work, to look at the Bill again and to see whether he can take it back and produce another.

11.56 a.m.

Major Haughton: I hope the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) will forgive me if I do not follow quickly or immediately the arguments he used and which he is well qualified to put forward. I have a general knowledge of the things about which he spoke but he has said things that we must study when we read HANSARD on Monday. I am sure that his contribution will be found to be very valuable.
I would like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). I find myself in agreement, I think for the first time, with most of the things the hon. Member said but there were one or two occasions during his speech when he used the word "compulsion" in connection with canteens, and with that, I did not agree. He said that experience during the war had led to a great extension of canteens in the big factories, and from his knowledge gained in travelling about the country he knew that big factories had suitable canteens but small factories had not. He thought it would be good if the Minister made the provision of canteens compulsory. I hope that the Minister, before he thinks about doing any such thing, will consider the varying conditions which prevail. Perhaps I may be permitted to draw on my personal experience of works in the very heart of the country. Many boys and girls walk, or ride upon bicycles to and from work. They would much prefer to go home in the middle of the day to get their meals, no matter how good the provision made in the works canteen. The pattern of the canteen differs there tremendously from what is found in the big shipyards and in other places.
The hon. Member for Mile End went on to speak of washing facilities, and indi-


cated the regrettable lack of towels. I hope that he will use his influence on the other side of the House with the various Ministers concerned, to see that towels are made available. In this connection it was only yesterday that very urgent representations were made to me from the associations concerned with the manufacture of protective clothing that there is a tremendous shortage of that clothing, and that very serious trouble is arising there-from in certain industries. The Minister might think about this matter and have a word with the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of Supply.
Generally speaking, the provisions of the Bill are very welcome though I gather from his remarks that the hon. Member for Rochdale will not be with me in this viewpoint. The Bill, however, recognises and introduces welcome improvements and I would like to pay tribute to it and to wish it every success.

11.59 a.m.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) raised certain points of criticism which deserve to be studied, and he described the Bill as retrograde. I venture to say at the outset of my speech that although many improvements might still be made, the Bill is undoubtedly a step forward in the right direction. It is sometimes stated that true history is a record of social progress and not a mere list of important events. It is a great pity that a Measure of this kind, which is a real improvement in the social history of this country, should receive so little attention and have such a small amount of time devoted to it. We are discussing it on a Friday when apparently the energies of many hon. Members are urgently engaged elsewhere, and the result is that the Bill does not get the attention which ought to be allotted to it.
I regard it as a very important Measure. Hitherto factory legislation, like the general mass of social legislation, has been rather paternal in its nature. It has been given in a way either to placate discontent or to ensure the value of labour in the market or very often as a matter of bounty to the people. In a Labour Government representative of the interests of all the people a new line in social legislation can be adopted. I want to stress this. This legislation can be enacted not

as a bounty, but as a natural right. This is exceedingly important because of two points of view from which social legislation should be effected. First of all, there is the recognition that people should have their natural rights, and, secondly, that giving them those rights is a matter of urgent necessity in the economic interests of the nation.
It is true that there was a comprehensive Factories Act in 1937. I remember the Minister saying, when introducing the Bill, that only some minor points had arisen in regard to that Act. I hope he will forgive me if I say that there is constant need of improvement and that the provisions of the Factories Act, 1937, good as they were, are still a considerable way behind the real needs of the people. There are many points of major improvement which call for study and action. I welcome the provision in the Bill which extends medical supervision to young persons. That is an obvious safeguard for the future of those people and the conditions of their employment. I hope that it will be possible in the very near future to extend that. It is also a good thing that the power to obtain an order from the Court where a factory is in such a condition that the work carried on in it is attended with risk of bodily injury, is further enlarged in the provisions of the Bill. It is good that there is now power to obtain an order where a factory is so constructed and placed that work cannot be carried on without risk of bodily injury. This will obviously enable the Court to deal with many cases where this power did not previously exist. It may seem a small thing, but I am glad to see that in regard to seating facilities the frailty of males is recognised and that at any rate in this branch there is some equality of the sexes. Perhaps our experience latterly of late Sittings lasting into the night, has had something to do with that reform.
When this Measure was last debated I listened with very great interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) and the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates). A most important point was raised, which ought to be stressed—the necessity for some real participation by the workers themselves or their representatives in the supervision of safety, health and welfare


matters. It is obvious that the workers are the people who, from a practical point of view, know what the real needs are. It is all very well for a factory inspector to go into a factory and make suggestions, but there should be means whereby the factory inspector can consult the representatives of the workers or, if need be, the workers can get into touch with the factory inspector and make direct representations. It is essential that that should be done by workers in a representative capacity so that there can be no danger of individual workmen being victimised in any way.
I am concerned about two other matters. First, there is a tendency today in many districts to take dwelling houses and convert them or part of them into workrooms or small factories. From the housing point of view, valuable space is used up. Residential districts in some cases deteriorate a great deal because of it. Often premises of that kind are entirely unsuitable for their purpose. Often they are uneconomic propositions. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health might have consulted about this matter and taken the opportunity in the Bill to devise some means of prohibiting or limiting the use of houses in this way and taking stringent measures, where houses are so used, to see that the interests of persons working there are properly protected.
Secondly, I would like to draw attention to the definition of the term "factory" in the 1937 Act. It is true that in Section 151 of that Act, it is defined in very wide terms. It covers cases where persons are employed in manual labour for the purposes of trade or gain. In the case of public authorities, the proviso that it must be for the purposes of trade or gain does not apply. We all know that there are important provisions in the principal Act in regard to the fencing of dangerous machinery and other measures for the welfare of people working there. Two cases which came before the courts fairly recently show how necessary it is that the definition of "factory" should be extended. I refer to the cases of Wood v. the London County Council and Weston v. the London County Council.
In schools or technical colleges we may get machines of a dangerous character,

used for the purposes of instruction, where no guard is provided, and someone may be injured because of the lack of a guard; or in a public institution there may be a kitchen containing a machine of a dangerous nature and injury is suffered because it is used without a guard. If it were a factory, the person injured would have a right to obtain damages because of a breach of statutory duty, but these technical colleges or schools and institutions do not come within the definition of "factory" and, therefore, the person suffering injury has no such rights. I hope the Minister will look at this point and see if the Bill can be amended to cover such cases.

Dr. Morgan: Is the hon. Member sure about that, because it is well known that the "factory "definition is so wide that it will cover not only an ordinary factory, but a workshop, and a place for tuition is recognised as a workshop, whether mechanical power is used or not?

Mr. Weitzman: I can deal very shortly with that point. In the case of Weston v. the London County Council, a boy was injured in a school where there was an unguarded machine, and it was clearly held that the school did not come within the definition of a factory. In the case of Wood v. the London County Council, a kitchen maid was injured by a machine in the kitchen of an institution, and it was held by the Court of Appeal, in reversing the decision by the judge of first instance on this point, that it did not come within the definition of a factory. I am obliged for the interruption because it emphasises the matter. I hope the Minister will see if the Bill can be amended to cover these cases.
The hon. Member for Ladywood, in a very interesting speech, referred to the fact that draughtsmen did not come within the scope of this Bill, and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) mentioned railwaymen. It does seem strange that although legislation of this kind is progressively dealt with in regard to workers in factories, many workers do not have the benefit of this legislation. I would plead for the black-coated worker. I hope the Government, recognising, as they must, that workers by brain as well as by hand are entitled to their natural rights, will see that legislation is enacted to deal with them. There are many such workers


in basements and other unsatisfactory premises. It would be a great thing for them if the Government studied the conditions in which they work, and did something to alleviate their lot in this direction. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, I welcome this Bill as a step forward, but I hope that, to some extent in Committee, or if not then, at some early date, the Government will take steps to widen its scope and deal with some of the problems on which I have touched.

12.11 p.m.

Mr. Berry: I listened with very close interest to what my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) and Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) said. While my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale was speaking, the idea went through my mind that he was making a wholesale impeachment of the medical profession. That thought was reinforced in my mind during his several perorations, which were equal in length only to those of Edmund Burke at the trial of Warren Hastings. He knows his profession best and is in a better position to judge, and I hope that notice will be taken in the proper quarter of what he has said. I do not agree with him when he speaks of this Bill being a retrograde step. On the contrary, I regard it as a small but progressive effort in our long line of factory legislation. There are one or two weaknesses in the Bill to which the Minister's attention has already been directed. Much of our factory legislation depends on the administration by factory inspectors, and it is, I think, common ground that the factory inspectors have a burden cast upon them which they cannot properly carry.
Let me give the House one example. A factory inspector is supposed to be responsible for the safety of scaffolding. On many occasions I have inquired whether a factory inspector has been sent to examine scaffolding—I do not mean the sort of scaffold that means the end of life, but building scaffolding. My attention was drawn particularly to this matter at the time of the collapse of scaffolding at Earls Court in the last decade. It was the duty of the factory inspector to see that the scaffolding which collapsed and nearly cost the lives of two men was in proper order. As a result, the attention of the London County Council

was drawn to the matter, and that body had a district inspector on the spot who had called attention to the faulty condition of this scaffolding.
The suggestion was put to the Home Office at the time that in the case of the larger authorities the duty of being responsible for the safety of scaffolding should be delegated to the officers of the local authority. The Home Office, with their peculiar "cribby" way, stuck fast and did nothing, in spite of the fact that it was virtually impossible for the factory inspectors to inspect the enormous amount of scaffolding which is to be found up and down the country. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he, with his broader vision, should look into this point again, because the safety of so many men depends on this matter.
Reference has been made to the need for the collaboration of the workers in matters of safety. I wholeheartedly endorse that. It would mean in the first place that those who seek to collaborate will have to study the question. Questions of safety may seem easy matters, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington would be the first to say that it is by no means an easy matter for lawyers or engineers. This is a matter which requires a good deal of study, and those who are to collaborate should be required to undergo study by their own organisations to enable them to function properly. There is another danger I have come across, and that is that where adequate provision of safety devices has been made, the safety precautions are not always observed by those operating the machine. It is not entirely unknown for the guard on a power press to be lifted up, or for people to get their arms round automatic guards. Education in this direction is very badly needed in order that the beneficent factory legislation, which is operated to the best of their ability by factory inspectors, is properly understood. I am not one of those who object to beneficent supervision. I know that some people object to paternal supervision and condemn administration because it is paternal. Paternal supervision was good for us all in our younger days, and I am not at all sure that it would not be a good thing for some people today to feel the severity of paternal supervision.

Dr. Morgan: Is my hon. Friend referring to people in this House?

Mr. Berry: It might not be without advantage in the case of my hon. Friend. I hope that in addition to this Bill, which I regard as a step forward in the right direction, there will be a great educational move in order that full advantage may be taken of our beneficent factory legislation.

12.17 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I should like to add a few words and I shall endeavour, if I can, not to repeat the arguments and points which have already been raised in the Debate. I should like to endorse the statement expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), that this Bill is of great and vital importance to the trade union movement. There is a great case to be made out for the establishment of an industrial medical service, and the Bill does not go far enough in that direction. As has already been explained, it is only in the larger factories where there is anything like medical supervision, whereas in the large number of smaller factories there is no supervision at all. My constituency contains some 500 factories in a very congested area, many of which are very small, and some of them are located in condemned houses. If a house is unfit for human habitation it is hardly suited for use as a place of work. In these cases certain adaptations take place to meet the requirements of local by-laws, and then sanction is given.
There is a great range of small factories which need better supervision. I believe that to some extent these smaller factories are covered by Clause 4 (3), and I should like my right hon. Friend to say what part he hopes local authorities are to play in carrying out the principles of this Bill. I cannot find anything in the Bill in regard to co-operation with a local authority. This is very important, because local authorities have their own health departments, sanitary inspectors and medical officers of health, and their duties must be tied up with those of the factory inspectorate, I do not know to what extent factory inspectors co-operate with local authorities on questions affecting the health and sanitary conditions of factories. There is some connection, but I do not think it very strong. I feel my right hon. Friend should try to bring more into the picture the work of local authorities, particularly their health departments, in relation to the mainten-

ance of proper standards of sanitation, health and hygiene, especially in smaller factories, which are not so well equipped as larger factories.
I also stress the importance of medical supervision of young persons entering employment. We are doing a lot nowadays for young people in the way of education and training for employment, but I wonder whether we do sufficient to see that young people are advised—I will not say compelled—to enter the kind of occupation for industry which is suited to their standard of health and physique. Those of us who have some knowledge of industrial conditions know only too well that often young people are pitched-forked into jobs for which they are not physically suitable and, as the years go by, one can see a change in their physical condition, generally for the worse and often proving fatal. If medical advice could be given to them suggesting what kind of work would best suit their physical condition, it would go a great way towards raising the standard of health of the workers.
I also emphasise the necessity for the closest co-operation with the trade unions because matters affecting the health and welfare of work people in factories is a very important part of their functions. I see no provision in the Bill for such consultation, but I think it rather important. The trade unions have close and intimate contact with conditions of work in particular localities and particular factories and I am satisfied that they could put forward valuable suggestions to factory inspectors and others concerned, and the trade unions and men in the factories should be brought into the scheme and given some responsibility for seeing that their factories are up to standard. It is important that the organised workers in a factory should realise and appreciate that they have some responsibility for this work. I am not one who accepts statements that lack of adequate welfare and other facilities is always due to the indifference of employers. I have been to places where employers have provided such facilities as baths and wash basins, but they cannot be used because the taps and stoppers disappear. When new ones are fitted they, too, disappear. As soon as soap appears in a wash basin, it goes. There is a small allocation of soap to factories and other places for the use of


workers, but if it is "knocked off" others who wish to wash and find no soap begin moaning that the management are not doing their job properly. It is important that the organised workers should have responsibility in establishing better standards of welfare and health and we must stamp out that sort of thing, when a minority try to sabotage good work.
I am sorry that the railways are not included in the scope of this Bill. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can do anything about that on the Committee stage. The question of sanitation and welfare facilities and general conditions in offices and railway stations is a matter with which the staffs have been gravely concerned for a long time, but they do not seem able to make much progress. We hope that with the change of ownership of the railway system this will be speeded up and improvements will be made. I believe a case can be made fog bringing the railways within the scope of the Factory Acts. In days gone by too little notice has been taken of grievances which were genuine and ought to have been rectified and could have been rectified. Very often persons who have to give decisions are not conversant with the circumstances, or are too far away to recognise their importance. For a long time the question of sanitary conditions in stations and offices and the provision of welfare and washing facilities has been a matter of great concern to the railway trade unions. If anything can be done to link up the railway trade unions and the railways with this scheme, I think it will be all to the good and that it will bring about a considerable improvement.
This Bill as has been said, is a step in the right direction and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, who has great knowledge and experience in the industrial field, will admit, on reflection, that improvements are embodied in the Bill. I hope that in the Committee stage we shall improve it still further and make it a more effective instrument.

12.28 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): As on the occasion when this Bill was before the House previously, I have listened with great interest to the useful contributions which have been made in the Debate. There is not very much between hon. Members who have spoken

and the Government and the Opposition in the desire to get the Bill passed.
One or two main questions were raised in the Debate with which I wish to deal. My hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) referred to the fact that there are not enough factory inspectors. We are quite aware of that, but steps are being taken to increase the number so that we may have enough to tackle the great amount of work which is coming forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) referred to the necessity of advising young people about the kind of work they should enter. He has possibly forgotten the Employment and Training Bill which will be coming to the House from another place next week and which covers all the points he has in mind.

Mr. Sparks: Will it include medical advice?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, the Bill includes all kinds of advice, but there is no compulsion in it. This Bill, like that one, is going forward a step at a time towards the main objective, while realising that we cannot get all we want at the present moment. My hon. Friend quite properly referred to the need for co-operation with the trade unions and the workers. So far as co-operation with the trade unions is concerned, I had a great deal of experience from the trade union side for many years. I always found the Home Office, which then handled these questions, most anxious and ready to hear representations from the trade unions. The trade unions did not always get what they wanted as a result of those representations, but there was always the fullest co-operation and consultation. The same spirit will be followed now that this Department is under the direction of the Ministry of Labour.
My hon. Friend made another rather interesting point, namely, that not only have we to get the interest of the trade unions in getting the right schemes, and the interest of the employers, who are much more willing nowadays than they were years ago to provide these facilities, but we must see that the facilities, when provided, are not abused by one or two people in the shop who by taking some action deprive a greater number of the use of those services.
In addition, my hon. Friend and also the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) referred to railways and offices. They do not and will not come within the scope of this Bill but those two subjects are at this moment within the terms of reference of a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers which has been set up by the Home Secretary and by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not for a moment argue about the need for bringing railways and offices within the scope of similar legislation and the matter is now under active consideration.
The right of the workers to be consulted on welfare has been raised. That right is in existence and is in operation, because in a great number of factories and works throughout the country there are workers' committees, welfare committees and bodies of that kind. The hon. Member for Mile End made a reference, which rather surprised me, to the fact that he knew shop stewards of 10 years' service in that capacity who had for 15 years been in a factory and had never met a factory inspector. One or other of two reasons would account for that. Either the factory was so well run that there was never any complaint and the factory inspector never went there, or when the factory inspector went there there was never anyone there to direct his attention to any problem which had arisen.
The factory inspector exists not merely to go and make a routine inspection of factories. He is anxious and willing at all times to hear representations from representatives of the workers either in the factory or outside the factory. In fact, factory inspectors go at the request of many works committees, trade councils and bodies of that kind, to talk to the workers in the factories and at outside meetings to tell them about factory work legislation and what can and cannot be done. They are there to give service, but it cannot be expected that when a factory inspector goes to inspect the factory he merely goes up to a shop steward and says "Here I am" and that the shop steward then walks round the factory with him.
In past years I was a shop steward under the good old-fashioned name in the printing trade of "father of the chapel"

and I would much prefer to make complaints to the factory inspector and let him go round and see for himself rather than to walk round with him. If the shop steward is to walk round with the workers' representative on the left side of the inspector, then an employer's representative will say "I will abide on thy right side and make the inspection with thee." I am afraid that if the inspector went round conducted by a representative of each side, he would see less than if he went round and made the examination by himself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) quite properly referred to the use of unsuitable premises as factories. We are trying in this Bill to take care of that aspect; we hope to deal with that point under Clause 4. Another of my hon. Friends made reference to the provision of adequate and sufficient standards for washing and matters of that sort. We are trying in this Bill to get some power which will get us away from the legal interpretation of a previous Act. We are anxious to see that there shall be adequate provision made, but at the same time to lay down a minimum standard. For example, it might be proper to say to a firm "The number of persons you employ and the kind of work you are doing requires that there should be one wash place for every 20 persons." That having been laid down, some other kind of materials might subsequently be used which might result in the position that although one wash place for every 20 employees was sufficient at the moment, it was not sufficient as a general standard. We wish to have the power to say that there shall be a minimum from which we can build up.
We are having all these points examined. That point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). As the point has been raised from both sides of the House by those who are interested in seeing the question of standards tackled on behalf of the worker and on behalf of the employer there is a viewpoint—

Mr. McCorquodale: May I say that I do not speak in this House as a representative of the employers or the


workers, but, I hope, as a representative of my constituency?

Mr. Isaacs: And a very weighty representative of the constituency, too. I was trying to point out that when a Minister finds that those who have spent their life on the employer's side of industry and those who have spent their life on the workers' side are approaching this question from the same point of view, and with the same purpose, and that that is the purpose which the Minister is following, it seems that we are on the right lines in trying to get to the right place. I recognise, of course, that everyone represents his constituency and no other interest.
I wish to deal more especially with the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), who said that he does not like the Bill. I would correct him a little by saying that I think he does like the Bill and that it is one Clause that he does not like. I hope to deal with that aspect. Some of my hon. Friends were rather critical of his attitude and drew attention to his several perorations, but we know my hon. Friend and are aware that often one point which he has remembered after he has decided to finish is the most valuable of the lot. I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. I know that if the firm's doctor is the man who is to certify whether a man has met with a particular disease in that firm or not, the man might have a doubt in his mind, although I believe that a doctor would not be swayed from his professional ideals. I said, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill:
it is thought that the firm's doctor would be less likely to give a certificate that it is an industrial disease arising out of the man's employment, whereas an outside doctor might give a certificate to that effect. There is that doubt, and we are anxious to discuss all the possibilities in this direction. I give a complete undertaking to examine with the most meticulous care any Amendments which may be brought forward on this subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 2767–8.]
It was not a question of closing but of opening the door; it was a question of saying that we shall try to remove any doubts and misunderstandings. Having

been engaged on behalf of the T.U.C. in days gone by in raising these particular questions, it is no use my pretending to be ignorant of the fact that these doubts exist. We do not want to spoil the value of the factory doctor by having some slight doubt cast upon his independence, which may be groundless but which might spoil the service he renders. The hon. Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for Acton both asked whether this Bill will retard the coming into operation of the full industrial medical service. If I thought it would retard that service, I should hesitate about giving it any support. I think I have dealt with all the points raised during the Debate and I trust the House will give the Bill a Second reading. We will give all possible attention, now and in Committee, to Amendments that may be moved.

Major Haughton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the point, upon which I think we were all agreed, about protective clothing? It is very serious at the present time.

Mr. Isaacs: This does not in any way take away the powers already existing relating to the essential provision and statutory obligations for preventive clothing and safety precautions of various kinds, but these are provided more under regulation than in the terms of the Act itself.

Mr. McCorquodale: I hope, now the Minister has given us his assurance, and as we have very little time to discuss this Bill on the Committee stage, that he will give due consideration to any Amendments. I notice in the Business for next week that we are supposed to take the Committee and remaining stages next Friday. I hope we shall not be rushed through.

Mr. Isaacs: We shall certainly give consideration to the wishes of the House in this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Inspections of crew accommodation.)

12.42 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, in page 5, line 35, to leave out "at sea."
The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) will recall that on Standing Committee he queried whether these words were either necessary or restricted. I am satisfied that they are not restrictive, but I have come to the view that they are not necessary

and so, to remove any doubt, I propose their deletion.

Commander Noble: I thank the Minister for considering this small point. Although as it stood in the Bill originally it would probably have been clear to those intimately concerned, I think that now it is clear to everyone.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn,"—[Mr. Pearson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to One o'Clock.